Known for all ages?? NOT

[sunlover1]

We don't really believe men's traditions because they say so though right?

Church member: " Why should I believe such and such"

Pastor: "Because it's what we've always taught"

church member : "how do I know God is real, I can't see him

Pastor: "Because you have to have Faith"

Apples and oranges first of all. Faith in God versus
faith in some man made ideas..

Secondly, that's a crappy answer from the pastor to a skeptic.
I would point to Romans 1 lol.

*insert some new smiley you're going to get for us ..here

 

[simonthezealot]

But, a question: do you deny that 'apostolic succession' was a doctrine that was held early-on? And if you do not deny this, what makes you think a random bishop is going to get away with being appointed, who the congregation has not heard of or been acquainted with?

Friend again this isn't about me or what i think...This is about historical evidence...
This doctrine does not develop according to RC beliefs but has always been there, Catholics must prove that the Bishop of Rome is his successor. The Bible does not mention a successor for Peter and early Christian history does not support the contentions of Catholicism.
Hmmm, why no evidence among the first couple hundred reason following the Lords ascension?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Friend again this isn't about me or what i think...This is about historical evidence...
This doctrine does not develop according to RC beliefs but has always been there, Catholics must prove that the Bishop of Rome is his successor. The Bible does not mention a successor for Peter and early Christian history does not support the contentions of Catholicism.
Hmmm, why no evidence among the first couple hundred reason following the Lords ascension?

I know, I know, this thread is about Peter, I get it, can you answer my question though? It's just asking for your view on something.

 

[simonthezealot]

I know, I know, this thread is about Peter, I get it, can you answer my question though? It's just asking for your view on something.

Asking me if i believe in Apostolic succession is a very vague question and i refuse to allow MY VIEW to sidetrack the lack of facts Rome has for this crucial tenet of their faith.

Edited:
Was it there early on, in a manner but that depends on your definition for example The Didache said only as long as it was faithful to the sound doctrine, Cyprian said by appointment of lay people and Clement by approval of the whole church (which is how we appoint leaders). All three of these differ from Rome.

 

[boswd]

Nope.

and you are sure about that huh?

Now I'm talking Primacy here, not Supremecy.

I mean you are not getting your sources from your leader Johnny Mac are you?

 

[simonthezealot]

I mean you are not getting your sources from your leader Johnny Mac are you?

You goading me boswd?

 

[boswd]

Apples and oranges first of all. Faith in God versus
faith in some man made ideas..

Secondly, that's a crappy answer from the pastor to a skeptic.
I would point to Romans 1 lol.

*insert some new smiley you're going to get for us ..here

hows that apples and oranges? We follow our Faith but at some point we must be led, that is the role of the Pastor, regardless if you think you have better answer *new smiliey icon inserted here*

at some point and to some extent we must put trust into our Pastors. going through your Faith doubting the person who is leading your congragtion doesn't sound to fullfilling or rewarding if you ask me.

 

[simonthezealot]

and you are sure about that huh?

Now I'm talking Primacy here, not Supremecy.

I mean you are not getting your sources from your leader Johnny Mac are you?

Confidently sure...

Are you sure you even understand Petrine Primacy?

 

[Standing Up]

Nope just asking, I know this is the guy you turn to for your information on the Catholic Church and your spiritual needs.

So why wouldn't I wonder if this is your source for all things evil the Catholic Church is.

Didn't think you'd read it. So let me quote what you're arguing for.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

You Roman Catholic or Anglican or what? They think you are endangered in your faith and salvation. You want to argue for them?

Simon is right. They claim it. Let them prove it.

 

[Standing Up]

But, a question: do you deny that 'apostolic succession' was a doctrine that was held early-on? And if you do not deny this, what makes you think a random bishop is going to get away with being appointed, who the congregation has not heard of or been acquainted with?

Teach the same to faithful men (Paul to Timothy). It's not that there are men in the church who claim to be successors, rather it's what they teach. That's what's important. Jesus Christ came in the flesh versus Bishop X from Bishop W and they teach Jesus was created. There's all sorts of lineages out there. Bottom line though is no one can prove them. They're myth at this stage of our history. You have to look instead at what's taught. When did the teaching begin? Something declared dogmatic in 1850 is clearly not apostolic.

If this Roman Papacy doctrine was there from apostles, from the beginning, we wouldn't be arguing about it. It is not there. 256--Rome vainly pretends the authority of apostles. They do not adhere to apostolic teaching. (Firmilian, and there's more). There are councils, patterned after Acts 15. Whatever city you're in, he's the "chairman".

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

So we are 78 posts into this thread and no one is even putting up an argument to support the vaticans claim that the Petrine primacy was known for all ages.
Yet people are willing to follow blindly this institution? You can't trace your own claims and yet you'll trust they have had this loyal to the LORD succession for 2000 years...
This should be very disconcerning.

What we are seeing is the most fundamental of your beliefs do not have a shred, a shred of historical proof for hundreds of years. Thats not good guys.

What missing evidence? Just because no council sat down and formulated a solemn definition of the role of the pope untl the 19th c. you think it wasn't held until then?

Find a solemn dogmatic definition of the Trinity written before AD 200 (or in aother thread someone demanded AD 70).

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Of course he did; the West had long held that the Primacy of Rome was that of St. Peter (although they forgot about Antioch) and some even said that this Primacy was akin to supremacy. It was only in the East where Rome had problems enforcing it's "authority".

But I the Protestants who started this thread don't even have an episcopacy, regardless of their opinion of the role of the Bishop of Rome. An argument between RCC and EO would look different.

 

[simonthezealot]

What missing evidence?

Maybe go back and read the OP one more time, it's really not that difficult.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Closing this for review.​

 

[FreeinChrist]

Mod Hat

Reopening this thread after a thread clean up. If your post is gone, it is because itwas in violation of the rules or responding to posts that were in violation.

Please stay on topic and be civil. ​

 

[simonthezealot]

Your ability to NOT understand a simple point perplexes me.
My view or any protestants view on Peter's position is irrelevant...
Back to the discussion. As you well know, what I am asking for is not at all unreasonable. This goes back 1700 years as Rome began to assert itself in a way that other Bishops did not agree with. Don't try to frame this as some kind of radical statement. What I am asking for is at the core of the Orthodox/Catholic split, is it not? At the core of this debate, is my request that Catholicism prove its claim of Papal supremacy. Everyone knows this is the primary issue that caused a massive split 1000 years ago. This is not a Simon invention. Reasonable people disagreed then and now. Do you think the Orthodox church is absurd as well for not believing this? I keep mentioning the Orthodox because most scholars in this particular area of the Papacy tend to be Catholic or Orthodox.
For most Protestants, who are content with a simplistic petra/petros argument, they never investigate further.

This is not a Simon argument. It is a debate that has raged on for 1700 to 1800 years, This stance of Catholicism must be proven. It has no room for development by their own decrees:
I can show you quotes that show how the early Church viewed this. I can provide quote after quote of how they viewed this. Remember, this doctrine does not develop according to their beliefs but has always been there.

First Vatican Council
"That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church"

Anyone?

 

[Rick Otto]

I always thought "Get the behind me" Peter was the prime example of our fallability.
Not the prime example of leadership & cool headed decision making.

 

[razeontherock]

hows that apples and oranges? We follow our Faith but at some point we must be led, that is the role of the Pastor

APPLES: Faith in G-d
ORANGES: faith in man

APPLES: led by Pastor
ORANGES: led by Pope

 

[simonthezealot]

Frankly I do not understand how anyone who is Roman catholic is not greatly troubled by the fact that there are libraries of early writings and yet none confirm what Romes claim is of being "known for all ages"

To me this should be incredibly troublesome.

 

[ivebeenshown]

APPLES: Faith in G-d
ORANGES: faith in man

APPLES: led by Pastor
ORANGES: led by Pope

Then why have bishops at all? What's the point? You think we trust the Pope for his own capability and power, or because we trust that God is working through this man? Do you trust any bishop or pastor that you feel God is NOT working through?